Total Posts:82|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Are there any Good Arguments for Obamacare

jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 2:54:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And by good I mean actually good. Not just things like "something needed to be done!" or "the only people who oppose Obamacare hate poor people!".

This bill is a total disaster and it will actually hurt poor people.

The only people it will help is well connected insurance companies and politicians who will get more people dependant on the state.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 3:03:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 2:54:38 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
And by good I mean actually good. Not just things like "something needed to be done!" or "the only people who oppose Obamacare hate poor people!".

This bill is a total disaster and it will actually hurt poor people.

The only people it will help is well connected insurance companies and politicians who will get more people dependant on the state.

You may have just answered you own question.
My work here is, finally, done.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 3:25:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 3:03:43 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/27/2013 2:54:38 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
And by good I mean actually good. Not just things like "something needed to be done!" or "the only people who oppose Obamacare hate poor people!".

This bill is a total disaster and it will actually hurt poor people.

The only people it will help is well connected insurance companies and politicians who will get more people dependant on the state.

You may have just answered you own question.

Fair point. That's why it passed.

But, a lot of non politicians support it.

I assume this is just because of pro Obamacare propaganda and blind support of the state, but I am curious if anyone has actually any good arguments.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 3:35:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
No, Obamacare will simply cause insurance rates to go through the roof and it will increase unemployment. I have not the slightest idea why even Obama was stupid enough to pass this bill.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 3:48:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Perhaps you would do well to actually look into the law, its origins, and the reasoning behind it?

Because something did need to be done. It's worth remembering that this is "Romneycare", too... and Romneycare has been rather successful. The original tentative Democratic plan had been single-payer, but the Republicans made it clear that wasn't an option, so they went with the same Heritage Foundation plan that Romneycare was based off of (including the mandate that Republicans now like to pretend they never were in support of). We've seen this plan in action on the scale of a single state, and it has generally worked. But once the big, bad Federal government (which so happens to be Democrat at the moment) suggests it, suddenly the fainting couches get brought out.

http://www.bloomberg.com...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 3:50:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 3:48:16 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Perhaps you would do well to actually look into the law, its origins, and the reasoning behind it?


Because something did need to be done. It's worth remembering that this is "Romneycare", too... and Romneycare has been rather successful. The original tentative Democratic plan had been single-payer, but the Republicans made it clear that wasn't an option, so they went with the same Heritage Foundation plan that Romneycare was based off of (including the mandate that Republicans now like to pretend they never were in support of). We've seen this plan in action on the scale of a single state, and it has generally worked. But once the big, bad Federal government (which so happens to be Democrat at the moment) suggests it, suddenly the fainting couches get brought out.

http://www.bloomberg.com...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

If a certain state wants Federal Health Care, let them have it. Do not force this healthcare on all the states, just the ones that want it.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 3:59:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 3:48:16 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Perhaps you would do well to actually look into the law, its origins, and the reasoning behind it?


Because something did need to be done. It's worth remembering that this is "Romneycare", too... and Romneycare has been rather successful. The original tentative Democratic plan had been single-payer, but the Republicans made it clear that wasn't an option, so they went with the same Heritage Foundation plan that Romneycare was based off of (including the mandate that Republicans now like to pretend they never were in support of). We've seen this plan in action on the scale of a single state, and it has generally worked. But once the big, bad Federal government (which so happens to be Democrat at the moment) suggests it, suddenly the fainting couches get brought out.

http://www.bloomberg.com...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

There is a world of difference between what a state does and what the feds do. The federal government cannot force me to buy auto insurance, but the state can.

Regarding Romneycare, is there any chance that that was/is successful because it is Mass, one of the more wealthier states? Is there any reason to assume it would work on a national level?

The lowest town's median income is still more than what 25% of people make nationwide.
http://www.boston.com...
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 4:00:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 3:50:23 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:48:16 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Perhaps you would do well to actually look into the law, its origins, and the reasoning behind it?


Because something did need to be done. It's worth remembering that this is "Romneycare", too... and Romneycare has been rather successful. The original tentative Democratic plan had been single-payer, but the Republicans made it clear that wasn't an option, so they went with the same Heritage Foundation plan that Romneycare was based off of (including the mandate that Republicans now like to pretend they never were in support of). We've seen this plan in action on the scale of a single state, and it has generally worked. But once the big, bad Federal government (which so happens to be Democrat at the moment) suggests it, suddenly the fainting couches get brought out.

http://www.bloomberg.com...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

If a certain state wants Federal Health Care, let them have it. Do not force this healthcare on all the states, just the ones that want it.

Go ahead and research the law and the reasoning behind it, then look into how the government works and what Federalism means. While there may be a states' rights argument to make (although it was rejected by the Supreme Court), it would need to be made by someone educated on the subject.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 4:05:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 3:59:50 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:48:16 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Perhaps you would do well to actually look into the law, its origins, and the reasoning behind it?


Because something did need to be done. It's worth remembering that this is "Romneycare", too... and Romneycare has been rather successful. The original tentative Democratic plan had been single-payer, but the Republicans made it clear that wasn't an option, so they went with the same Heritage Foundation plan that Romneycare was based off of (including the mandate that Republicans now like to pretend they never were in support of). We've seen this plan in action on the scale of a single state, and it has generally worked. But once the big, bad Federal government (which so happens to be Democrat at the moment) suggests it, suddenly the fainting couches get brought out.

http://www.bloomberg.com...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

There is a world of difference between what a state does and what the feds do. The federal government cannot force me to buy auto insurance, but the state can.

The feds could do it through taxation, as well. They could also require it in order to drive on Highways, which are Federal in nature. They could also link Federal road money to creating laws requiring insurance (like they did with the blood alcohol levels).

Regarding Romneycare, is there any chance that that was/is successful because it is Mass, one of the more wealthier states? Is there any reason to assume it would work on a national level?

Maybe. Perhaps you should research it; but it cannot simply be dismissed out of hand.

The lowest town's median income is still more than what 25% of people make nationwide.
http://www.boston.com...

And the cost of living is higher, as well, by anywhere from 10-26%:

http://www.cityrating.com...

http://www.bestplaces.net...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 4:06:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 3:25:17 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:03:43 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/27/2013 2:54:38 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
And by good I mean actually good. Not just things like "something needed to be done!" or "the only people who oppose Obamacare hate poor people!".

This bill is a total disaster and it will actually hurt poor people.

The only people it will help is well connected insurance companies and politicians who will get more people dependant on the state.

You may have just answered you own question.

Fair point. That's why it passed.

But, a lot of non politicians support it.

I assume this is just because of pro Obamacare propaganda and blind support of the state, but I am curious if anyone has actually any good arguments.

People are in support of it because they believe it will lower the cost of insurance, which it will for some (e.g. the sickly, those who can't get it due to pre-existing condition because they let their plan drop).

General healthcare is a right to some people, arguably within the general welfare clause of the Constitution.

People confuse health insurance with health care, and this is why insurance rates are so expensive. Insurance should not cover doctor visits, IMO.

Personally, I would rather see the loss of business dedcution for health insurance, thus employees would get a raise, and can buy their own insurance. Insurance regulations need to be laxed, so people can buy what they want (yes drug dependency, no mental health, no pregnency, yes doctor co-pay, etc.). Tax credits or deductins should be allowed for these expenses.
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 4:12:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:06:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

People are in support of it because they believe it will lower the cost of insurance, which it will for some (e.g. the sickly, those who can't get it due to pre-existing condition because they let their plan drop).

General healthcare is a right to some people, arguably within the general welfare clause of the Constitution.

People confuse health insurance with health care, and this is why insurance rates are so expensive. Insurance should not cover doctor visits, IMO.

Personally, I would rather see the loss of business dedcution for health insurance, thus employees would get a raise, and can buy their own insurance.

I doubt that businesses would give a raise that equalled the amount they were paying for health insurance.

Insurance regulations need to be laxed, so people can buy what they want (yes drug dependency, no mental health, no pregnency, yes doctor co-pay, etc.). Tax credits or deductins should be allowed for these expenses.

The problem is that not getting appropriate care early results in higher bills later, which bankrupt individuals AND ALSO cost the state, because we are not comfortable as a society with letting people die in the streets; hospitals are required to take you regardless of your ability to pay.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 4:24:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:12:23 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:06:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:


People are in support of it because they believe it will lower the cost of insurance, which it will for some (e.g. the sickly, those who can't get it due to pre-existing condition because they let their plan drop).

General healthcare is a right to some people, arguably within the general welfare clause of the Constitution.

People confuse health insurance with health care, and this is why insurance rates are so expensive. Insurance should not cover doctor visits, IMO.

Personally, I would rather see the loss of business dedcution for health insurance, thus employees would get a raise, and can buy their own insurance.

I doubt that businesses would give a raise that equalled the amount they were paying for health insurance.

Why wouldn't they?
If they currently pay $50K between salary and benefits, and now they can either pay $40K in salary and be taxed on $10K or pay you the whole $50K (or offer insurance and be taxed on the $10K), why would they keep it, and risk pissing off their employees, who would go somewhere else?

Insurance regulations need to be laxed, so people can buy what they want (yes drug dependency, no mental health, no pregnency, yes doctor co-pay, etc.). Tax credits or deductins should be allowed for these expenses.

The problem is that not getting appropriate care early results in higher bills later, which bankrupt individuals AND ALSO cost the state, because we are not comfortable as a society with letting people die in the streets; hospitals are required to take you regardless of your ability to pay.

Generally, this is true, but what is your point?
That people won't buy insurance? I don't feel bad for them.
That the state won't mandate certain requirements? I don't see why they should, if I don't want them. I am a man, I don't need to cover pregnency. I don't do drugs, so I don't what drug rehab benefits.

Hospitals are only required to take you if you are dying. They do not take you in because of a tumor, but when that tumor causes your kidneys to fail, then they take you... for free if need be.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 4:34:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:05:56 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:59:50 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:48:16 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Perhaps you would do well to actually look into the law, its origins, and the reasoning behind it?


Because something did need to be done. It's worth remembering that this is "Romneycare", too... and Romneycare has been rather successful. The original tentative Democratic plan had been single-payer, but the Republicans made it clear that wasn't an option, so they went with the same Heritage Foundation plan that Romneycare was based off of (including the mandate that Republicans now like to pretend they never were in support of). We've seen this plan in action on the scale of a single state, and it has generally worked. But once the big, bad Federal government (which so happens to be Democrat at the moment) suggests it, suddenly the fainting couches get brought out.

http://www.bloomberg.com...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

There is a world of difference between what a state does and what the feds do. The federal government cannot force me to buy auto insurance, but the state can.

The feds could do it through taxation, as well. They could also require it in order to drive on Highways, which are Federal in nature. They could also link Federal road money to creating laws requiring insurance (like they did with the blood alcohol levels).

I believe they do the latter, and that is at least legal. Bad form, IMO, but legal. The Feds do not have a BAC requirement for DWI, nor do they require auto insurance, nor can they just pass a law to require either.

Regarding Romneycare, is there any chance that that was/is successful because it is Mass, one of the more wealthier states? Is there any reason to assume it would work on a national level?

Maybe. Perhaps you should research it; but it cannot simply be dismissed out of hand.

Quick research:
less than 10% of Mass residents were uninsured before Romneycare.
According to Michael Moore, 1 in 6 Americans are not insured.

There is a world of difference in about 7 percentage points in how one might work and another might not.
http://www.creators.com...
My work here is, finally, done.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 6:27:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The PPACA will expand insurance to millions of new people.

However, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that up to 20 million workers will lose their insurance... (http://news.heartland.org...)

Many people have earned rebates from their insurance companies, but premiums are expected to rise as much as 150% (http://online.wsj.com...)

Market exchanges aren't a bad idea... though the subsidies involved aren't needed. America's government already is in a fiscal mess.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 6:36:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I support ObamaCare, in the same way that I would support being thrown into a wet sewer if I was on fire. I do not want to be seen suggesting the sewage is 'good,' but.

We need socialized, European/Canadian style, single payer, Medicaid for all. ObamaCare moves our systems towards this, and so it is "good."

As for it's frequent criticisms; we cannot discuss the matter effectively without a frame of reference that we can all access. This does not exist. The right in America has been told by trusted sources that the new requirements are everything that is evil in the whole world. The left has been more or less ignored, and our hopes were cut down by the drafters of the ACA.

This creates a scenario where it becomes possible to ask "is ObamaCare good for anything?" without a majority of persons immediately recognizing the necessary ignorance that is revealed by such a question.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 7:03:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 6:36:22 PM, DeFool wrote:
I support ObamaCare, in the same way that I would support being thrown into a wet sewer if I was on fire. I do not want to be seen suggesting the sewage is 'good,' but.

We need socialized, European/Canadian style, single payer, Medicaid for all. ObamaCare moves our systems towards this, and so it is "good."

I hope you mean Medicare for All. Medicaid is bad enough in its current form.


As for it's frequent criticisms; we cannot discuss the matter effectively without a frame of reference that we can all access. This does not exist. The right in America has been told by trusted sources that the new requirements are everything that is evil in the whole world. The left has been more or less ignored, and our hopes were cut down by the drafters of the ACA.

Then the left has the responsibility of creating their frame. Which they haven't done effectively yet.

This creates a scenario where it becomes possible to ask "is ObamaCare good for anything?" without a majority of persons immediately recognizing the necessary ignorance that is revealed by such a question.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 7:12:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:24:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:12:23 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:06:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:


People are in support of it because they believe it will lower the cost of insurance, which it will for some (e.g. the sickly, those who can't get it due to pre-existing condition because they let their plan drop).

General healthcare is a right to some people, arguably within the general welfare clause of the Constitution.

People confuse health insurance with health care, and this is why insurance rates are so expensive. Insurance should not cover doctor visits, IMO.

Personally, I would rather see the loss of business dedcution for health insurance, thus employees would get a raise, and can buy their own insurance.

I doubt that businesses would give a raise that equalled the amount they were paying for health insurance.

Why wouldn't they?
If they currently pay $50K between salary and benefits, and now they can either pay $40K in salary and be taxed on $10K or pay you the whole $50K (or offer insurance and be taxed on the $10K), why would they keep it, and risk pissing off their employees, who would go somewhere else?

Except by removing the tax incentive, they'll be taxed on the 10K, so there's that.

And "Why would they keep it"? Because they can. The employees can't "go somewhere else" unless the other businesses decide out of the goodness of their heart to pay a higher wage than they necessarily have to.

Insurance regulations need to be laxed, so people can buy what they want (yes drug dependency, no mental health, no pregnency, yes doctor co-pay, etc.). Tax credits or deductins should be allowed for these expenses.

The problem is that not getting appropriate care early results in higher bills later, which bankrupt individuals AND ALSO cost the state, because we are not comfortable as a society with letting people die in the streets; hospitals are required to take you regardless of your ability to pay.

Generally, this is true, but what is your point?
That people won't buy insurance?

In many cases, they CAN'T. You were advocating for "people can buy what they want"; the flip side of that and "laxer" regulation is undoubtedly that would mean: higher premiums for those with conditions to the point of impossibility, and insurance companies kicking them if at all possible.

I don't feel bad for them.

Because you buy into the idea that everyone who doesnt' have insurance is making a "choice" as though they're buying an xbox instead of being insured, when it very well might be that they have to choose between EATING and being insured.

That the state won't mandate certain requirements? I don't see why they should, if I don't want them. I am a man, I don't need to cover pregnency. I don't do drugs, so I don't what drug rehab benefits.

I know my insurance already wouldn't cover me if I got pregnant or had to do rehab. So this is really not a relevant point.

Hospitals are only required to take you if you are dying. They do not take you in because of a tumor, but when that tumor causes your kidneys to fail, then they take you... for free if need be.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

No.

Hospitals are required to take you no matter what.

Sorry if that comes across poorly, but you literally made me burst out laughing. There are signs at the front door of hospitals explicitly saying you have the right to treatment regardless of your ability to pay. Trust me, the vast majority of ER patients aren't "dying".

If you want to go to the ER, you go to the ER. They aren't required to admit you unless you are unstable. However, they have to see you and, both for legal reasons and liability ones, they have to medically clear you before they boot you out, no matter how stupid your complaint. I live in an extremely red state, yet have literally taken thousands of people at this point in my career, via ambulance, to the hospital, that I know for a fact do not need to go. But they called 911, so if they want to go, they go. (there are SOME jurisdictions that have resources to TRY to deal with it, but they aren't as effective as you think...is abdominal pain the flu, or an abdominal aortic aneurysm? Only a doctor knows for sure.)
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 7:17:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Instead of Obamacare, I think we should allow individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines, expand the usage of health savings accounts, and reduce health insurance mandates/ regulation.

It wouldn't cost the federal government anything.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 7:22:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:34:23 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
The feds could do it through taxation, as well. They could also require it in order to drive on Highways, which are Federal in nature. They could also link Federal road money to creating laws requiring insurance (like they did with the blood alcohol levels).

I believe they do the latter, and that is at least legal. Bad form, IMO, but legal. The Feds do not have a BAC requirement for DWI, nor do they require auto insurance, nor can they just pass a law to require either.

The Feds don't have a law "requiring" insurance. You just pay higher taxes if you don't have it. You understand that, right?

Just as the feds didn't pass a law for BAC, they just didn't give highway money if the states didn't do it.

http://www.cnsnews.com...

Regarding Romneycare, is there any chance that that was/is successful because it is Mass, one of the more wealthier states? Is there any reason to assume it would work on a national level?

Maybe. Perhaps you should research it; but it cannot simply be dismissed out of hand.

Quick research:
less than 10% of Mass residents were uninsured before Romneycare.
According to Michael Moore, 1 in 6 Americans are not insured.

There is a world of difference in about 7 percentage points in how one might work and another might not.
http://www.creators.com...

I would call that a significant difference. I don't know I would agree that it is a "world of difference", but that's just semantical quibbling. However, that doesn't actually demonstrate a difference in efficacy, just that a difference between the state and the nation exists. It's also statistically colder in Massachussetts, too.

Further, my first source noted a 10% increase in insured folks, rising from 88% (close but not identical to the estimate you found because that estimate only looked at the two years immediately prior to effective date) to 98%. So 12% of MA residents were ununsured over the previous three year average. Don't forget that some places undoubtedly got "Ahead of the ball" on this, so the shorter the time you're looking at before technical effectiveness, the more skewage you'll get in numbers.

1:6 = 16%
1:8(1/3)= 12%

The numbers aren't that far off.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 7:42:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 6:27:52 PM, Contra wrote:
The PPACA will expand insurance to millions of new people.

However, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that up to 20 million workers will lose their insurance... (http://news.heartland.org...)

The statistic that says that people will move from employer based coverage to exchange coverage. The headline and article are deceptive.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 8:23:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 7:42:50 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 7/27/2013 6:27:52 PM, Contra wrote:
The PPACA will expand insurance to millions of new people.

However, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that up to 20 million workers will lose their insurance... (http://news.heartland.org...)

The statistic that says that people will move from employer based coverage to exchange coverage. The headline and article are deceptive.

People who move to exchange coverage will thus probably accept subsidies to pay for health insurance. To put it cruelly, they will become a parasite and absorb capital from businesses and the hardworking taxpayers.

The economy will be harmed, i.e. fewer jobs, lower wages, and reduced opportunities.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 8:36:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 8:23:56 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/27/2013 7:42:50 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 7/27/2013 6:27:52 PM, Contra wrote:
The PPACA will expand insurance to millions of new people.

However, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that up to 20 million workers will lose their insurance... (http://news.heartland.org...)

The statistic that says that people will move from employer based coverage to exchange coverage. The headline and article are deceptive.

People who move to exchange coverage will thus probably accept subsidies to pay for health insurance. To put it cruelly, they will become a parasite and absorb capital from businesses and the hardworking taxpayers.

The economy will be harmed, i.e. fewer jobs, lower wages, and reduced opportunities.

Irrelevant to what I said. You implied that people would be losing insurance. That's not the case.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 9:33:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 7:03:58 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/27/2013 6:36:22 PM, DeFool wrote:
I support ObamaCare, in the same way that I would support being thrown into a wet sewer if I was on fire. I do not want to be seen suggesting the sewage is 'good,' but.

We need socialized, European/Canadian style, single payer, Medicaid for all. ObamaCare moves our systems towards this, and so it is "good."

I hope you mean Medicare for All. Medicaid is bad enough in its current form.

I am happy with either. VA Health benefits for all would also work for the argument.


As for it's frequent criticisms; we cannot discuss the matter effectively without a frame of reference that we can all access. This does not exist. The right in America has been told by trusted sources that the new requirements are everything that is evil in the whole world. The left has been more or less ignored, and our hopes were cut down by the drafters of the ACA.

Then the left has the responsibility of creating their frame. Which they haven't done effectively yet.

This would be an act of heresy; the liberal left would hate ObamaCare if the alternative wasn't so much worse. It is the Democrats that love it. We leftists support universal health care, and think it is appalling that anyone must pay for medical attention. We do not pay directly for the Marine Corps. When we call the police to report a burglary, they do not ensure that we have our insurance cards in order and that we have paid our previous police bills.

This creates a scenario where it becomes possible to ask "is ObamaCare good for anything?" without a majority of persons immediately recognizing the necessary ignorance that is revealed by such a question.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 11:32:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 8:36:38 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 7/27/2013 8:23:56 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/27/2013 7:42:50 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 7/27/2013 6:27:52 PM, Contra wrote:
The PPACA will expand insurance to millions of new people.

However, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that up to 20 million workers will lose their insurance... (http://news.heartland.org...)

The statistic that says that people will move from employer based coverage to exchange coverage. The headline and article are deceptive.

People who move to exchange coverage will thus probably accept subsidies to pay for health insurance. To put it cruelly, they will become a parasite and absorb capital from businesses and the hardworking taxpayers.

The economy will be harmed, i.e. fewer jobs, lower wages, and reduced opportunities.

Irrelevant to what I said. You implied that people would be losing insurance. That's not the case.

Well ok I think we reached a point here. Up to 20 million workers will lose their employer-sponsored health insurance and instead become dependent on the state for various forms of assistance.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
TheMellowMan
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 11:38:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Obamacare is awesome! Obama had this great idea and he finally put it into action, in spite of the teatards. He's a great president, he supports gay marriage! Why wouldn't you like Obamacare? It gives everyone healthcare, unless you want people to die you really should like it, or you dislike our president, in which case leave, America is better without your like.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 12:07:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:24:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:12:23 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

I doubt that businesses would give a raise that equalled the amount they were paying for health insurance.

Why wouldn't they?
If they currently pay $50K between salary and benefits, and now they can either pay $40K in salary and be taxed on $10K or pay you the whole $50K (or offer insurance and be taxed on the $10K), why would they keep it, and risk pissing off their employees, who would go somewhere else?

What if every employer refused the raise? Businesses are about marginalizing costs after all, not maximizing them.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 4:52:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 12:07:53 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:24:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:12:23 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

I doubt that businesses would give a raise that equalled the amount they were paying for health insurance.

Why wouldn't they?
If they currently pay $50K between salary and benefits, and now they can either pay $40K in salary and be taxed on $10K or pay you the whole $50K (or offer insurance and be taxed on the $10K), why would they keep it, and risk pissing off their employees, who would go somewhere else?

What if every employer refused the raise? Businesses are about marginalizing costs after all, not maximizing them.

Then why did they start offering any benefits ever? PTO, sick pay, perks, insurance, 401k matching, etc?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 5:12:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 7:22:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:34:23 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
The feds could do it through taxation, as well. They could also require it in order to drive on Highways, which are Federal in nature. They could also link Federal road money to creating laws requiring insurance (like they did with the blood alcohol levels).

I believe they do the latter, and that is at least legal. Bad form, IMO, but legal. The Feds do not have a BAC requirement for DWI, nor do they require auto insurance, nor can they just pass a law to require either.

The Feds don't have a law "requiring" insurance. You just pay higher taxes if you don't have it. You understand that, right?
Yes and no.

Yes, you pay higher taxes for not having it, thus de facto requiring it, but still not technically requiring it. *grumble, grumble*

No, in the sense that the Feds are requiring you to have a specific level of insurance. And, unlike the BAC or seatbelt laws, it affects individuals, not states.

The numbers aren't that far off.

I suppose not, but it doesn't take much to affect a model drastically, and potentially throw a plan into chaos. Hell, apparently one degree Celsius will flood the world or something.

Is this difference enough? I don't know.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 5:32:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 7:12:25 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:24:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:12:23 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:06:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:


People are in support of it because they believe it will lower the cost of insurance, which it will for some (e.g. the sickly, those who can't get it due to pre-existing condition because they let their plan drop).

General healthcare is a right to some people, arguably within the general welfare clause of the Constitution.

People confuse health insurance with health care, and this is why insurance rates are so expensive. Insurance should not cover doctor visits, IMO.

Personally, I would rather see the loss of business dedcution for health insurance, thus employees would get a raise, and can buy their own insurance.

I doubt that businesses would give a raise that equalled the amount they were paying for health insurance.

Why wouldn't they?
If they currently pay $50K between salary and benefits, and now they can either pay $40K in salary and be taxed on $10K or pay you the whole $50K (or offer insurance and be taxed on the $10K), why would they keep it, and risk pissing off their employees, who would go somewhere else?

Except by removing the tax incentive, they'll be taxed on the 10K, so there's that.

Not if they pay that money in wages.

And "Why would they keep it"? Because they can. The employees can't "go somewhere else" unless the other businesses decide out of the goodness of their heart to pay a higher wage than they necessarily have to.

This assumes that no one would spend the same on labor. This also negates the advent of businesses paying benefits in the first place. They don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, they do it to attract good employees and to keep them.

Also, a lot of people don't quit jobs because of the benefits (not necessarily the wage, but the benefits). So, if businesses just eliminated them altogether, small businesses may go on the rise again.


Insurance regulations need to be laxed, so people can buy what they want (yes drug dependency, no mental health, no pregnency, yes doctor co-pay, etc.). Tax credits or deductins should be allowed for these expenses.

The problem is that not getting appropriate care early results in higher bills later, which bankrupt individuals AND ALSO cost the state, because we are not comfortable as a society with letting people die in the streets; hospitals are required to take you regardless of your ability to pay.

Generally, this is true, but what is your point?
That people won't buy insurance?

In many cases, they CAN'T. You were advocating for "people can buy what they want"; the flip side of that and "laxer" regulation is undoubtedly that would mean: higher premiums for those with conditions to the point of impossibility, and insurance companies kicking them if at all possible.

Are those with conditions looking for insurance or health care?

I don't feel bad for them.

Because you buy into the idea that everyone who doesnt' have insurance is making a "choice" as though they're buying an xbox instead of being insured, when it very well might be that they have to choose between EATING and being insured.

If their insurance is that much, chances are, it isn't insurance.

That the state won't mandate certain requirements? I don't see why they should, if I don't want them. I am a man, I don't need to cover pregnency. I don't do drugs, so I don't what drug rehab benefits.

I know my insurance already wouldn't cover me if I got pregnant or had to do rehab. So this is really not a relevant point.

Different states have different mandates.

Hospitals are only required to take you if you are dying. They do not take you in because of a tumor, but when that tumor causes your kidneys to fail, then they take you... for free if need be.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I didn't realize there was a difference between admission and seeing. My apologies.
My work here is, finally, done.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 5:38:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 11:38:05 PM, TheMellowMan wrote:
Obamacare is awesome! Obama had this great idea and he finally put it into action, in spite of the teatards. He's a great president, he supports gay marriage! Why wouldn't you like Obamacare? It gives everyone healthcare, unless you want people to die you really should like it, or you dislike our president, in which case leave, America is better without your like.

Excellent and well reasoned. I am convinced!
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."